Break Glass - 2020 USA Elections

1121314151618»

Comments

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    John Hickelooper has ended his run for the Democratic presidential nomination. I think we're down to the point where there are no longer enough Democratic candidates to fill out a Bingo card.
  • I think that was a wise move on Mr. Hickenlooper's part. He didn't stand a chance, and we need him in the Senate. (He used to own a brewery, so he can't be all bad!)
  • We need quite a few of those people in the Senate instead of wasting their time and money on a hopeless race for the presidency.

  • ...and risking any of their personal secrets being exposed and published...

    Basic "oppo" (opposition) research. They could even wind up being the "October surprise" of 2020. (The general election is in November, so the campaigns produce surprise info in October in a last-ditch effort to put voters off the other candidate.)
  • Ohher wrote: »

    We have some very ugly people with horrendous views in Australia, but none reach quite the lows as this guy.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited August 20
    Just to point out that while we have been talking about the top 20 Democrat Candidates, as of August 19, 2019 there are a total of 823 candidates that have officially filed for candidacy:

    275 Democratic candidates
    118 Republican candidates
    36 Libertarian candidates
    15 Green candidates

    The rest are undeclared or independent.

    Source: Ballotpedia

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Jay Inslee is out.
    Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, who has ended his climate change-focused 2020 presidential bid, is set to announce Thursday that he’ll seek a third term as governor.

    Two people close to Inslee told The Associated Press that Inslee planned to make the announcement in an email to supporters. The two spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the announcement publicly.

    Inslee, who made fighting climate change the central theme of his presidential campaign, announced Wednesday night that he was ending his campaign after nearly six months.

    Inslee said that he was confident that Democrats would select a nominee who would champion climate change issues but that it had become clear that he wouldn’t be the person selected. Inslee said he was not endorsing anyone but would support whoever is the nominee.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Quicker than you can say "Seth Who?", Seth Moulton has ended his presidential run.

    Who could have predicted that someone whose last big political move was a laughably inept attempt to deny Pelosi the Speakership wouldn't be able to generate much enthusiasm and/or support as a presidential candidate?
  • Graven ImageGraven Image Shipmate
    edited August 23
    Seth Who? I should have said it sooner.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Exactly ten candidates have fulfilled the requirements to participate in the next round of Democratic primary debates. In order to qualify a candidate had to receive at least 130,000 donations from unique donors and poll at least 2% support in a recognized national or early state poll.

    The Debatables
    • Joe Biden
    • Corey Booker
    • Pete Buttigieg
    • Julián Castro
    • Kamala Harris
    • Amy Klobuchar
    • Beto O'Rourke
    • Bernie Sanders
    • Elizabeth Warren
    • Andrew Yang

    There were three candidates who qualified by number of donors but fell short in polled support.

    Close But Not Quite
    • Tulsi Gabbard
    • Tom Steyer
    • Marianne Williamson

    And then there were those who didn't qualify by either polled support or donations.

    Not Even Close
    • Michael Bennet
    • Steve Bullock
    • Bill de Blasio
    • John Delaney
    • Kirsten Gillibrand
    • Wayne Messam
    • Tim Ryan
    • Joe Sestak

    Shortly after it was clear that she wouldn't make the September 12 debate stage Kirsten Gillibrand ended her candidacy.
  • I could never see Kirsten Gillibrand as POTUS, but I'm glad she'll continue in the Senate.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    While Biden is still leading in the polls, there are more points against him in total. He is not a shoo-in. I am thinking that as the number of candidates decrease, Biden's spread will narrow even more.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited August 29
    In non-presidential election news Senator Jonny Isakson of Georgia has just announced he'll be resigning from the Senate at the end of the year.
    U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson said Wednesday that he will step down from office at the end of this year as he struggles with Parkinson’s disease, upending state politics and setting up two elections in 2020 for the Senate in Georgia.

    Isakson, a three-term Republican, said he decided to resign because of the “mounting health challenges” that include several falls from Parkinson’s disease and surgery this week to remove a growth on his kidney.

    “It goes against every fiber of my being to leave in the middle of my Senate term, but I know it’s the right thing to do on behalf of my state,” the 74-year-old Isakson said in a statement.

    Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican, will appoint a replacement for Isakson, who was elected to a third term by a wide margin in 2016. Though Isakson’s term doesn’t expire until 2022, the timing of his retirement means the seat will be on the ballot next year.

    Georgia is still a red state but it's gotten increasingly competitive over the last several election cycles. Republicans having to defend two Senate seats there in 2020 could be a challenge.
  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    edited September 4
    Marianne Williamson called for all of us to pray and/or meditate for two minutes to turn the hurricane Dorian away from its path toward Florida. Here.

    Part of me wants her to be president just for the complete change.

    Last week we had Andrew Yang doing the Cupid Shuffle with some senior citizens.

    I like all these people so much more than the incumbent.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Twilight wrote: »
    Marianne Williamson called for all of us to pray and/or meditate for two minutes to turn the hurricane Dorian away from its path toward Florida. Here.

    And it worked! Retroactively! About three days before Williamson tweeted out her call for prayer or meditation Hurricane Dorian stalled over Grand Bahama, wreaking horrendous wind and rain damage. Then it turned north, targeting the Carolinas. (Damage TBD.) But hey, good job saving Florida, Marianne.
  • Back in the day people who couldn't command storms didn't even bother running for office. Sad!
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Is someone poisoning US water supplies? The US Cheat-o thinks he's the Chosen One ( and thinks he's better at hurricane predicting the National Hurricane Center; and now Marianne What's-Her-Face imagines she can summons psychic energy to turn storms. Unlike Twilight I do NOT like green eggs and ham. Please, come 2020, could we take a little break from nutjobs in the White House?
  • My current Primary Prayer is to live long enough to vote (again) against the Cheeto and all his works and allies. Please, Lord, help us to save our Republic against corruption, lies, and all-around evil.

  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Votives for that vote, Rossweisse.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    Host hat on
    I get where people are coming from, but can I remind folks to refrain from the use of opprobrious epithets in Purgatory* to help maintain it as a place for reasoned debate. (*Other places are available!)
    Host hat off
    BroJames Purgatory Host
  • Here's Elizabeth Warren prepping for the lightsaber duel portion of Thursday's debate.
  • While Biden is still leading in the polls, there are more points against him in total. He is not a shoo-in. I am thinking that as the number of candidates decrease, Biden's spread will narrow even more.
  • Middle east analyst Elijah Magnier expects that Iran will have full nuclear capability shortly before the 2020 US election. In a sane country that would be indicative of Trump's recklessness in tearing up the JCPOA and his failure to impose a stronger curb on the Iranian nuclear project. But in the US I could easily see this as being spun as vindicating Iran hawks.
  • Middle east analyst Elijah Magnier expects that Iran will have full nuclear capability shortly before the 2020 US election. In a sane country that would be indicative of Trump's recklessness in tearing up the JCPOA and his failure to impose a stronger curb on the Iranian nuclear project. But in the US I could easily see this as being spun as vindicating Iran hawks.

    As I understand it their argument is something along the lines of "the JCPOA could potentially let Iran develop nuclear weapons in five to ten years, so we took actions to make sure that Iran develops nuclear weapons much sooner". And yes, in a sane country people who reason like that would never be put in charge of a pen knife, let alone the national government.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    While Biden is still leading in the polls, there are more points against him in total. He is not a shoo-in. I am thinking that as the number of candidates decrease, Biden's spread will narrow even more.

    The combined support for Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders (the two candidates contending for the left flank of the Democratic party) is slightly higher than the support for Joe Biden's candidacy according to most polls. This could be an interesting object lesson in either the dangers of splitting the vote or the value of strategic voting, depending on how this turns out.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    While Biden is still leading in the polls, there are more points against him in total. He is not a shoo-in. I am thinking that as the number of candidates decrease, Biden's spread will narrow even more.

    The combined support for Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders (the two candidates contending for the left flank of the Democratic party) is slightly higher than the support for Joe Biden's candidacy according to most polls. This could be an interesting object lesson in either the dangers of splitting the vote or the value of strategic voting, depending on how this turns out.

    A sizable amount of Sanders supporters list Biden as their second choice, not Warren. Sanders’ and Warren’s supporters have many areas in which they don’t overlap.

  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    While Biden is still leading in the polls, there are more points against him in total. He is not a shoo-in. I am thinking that as the number of candidates decrease, Biden's spread will narrow even more.

    The combined support for Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders (the two candidates contending for the left flank of the Democratic party) is slightly higher than the support for Joe Biden's candidacy according to most polls. This could be an interesting object lesson in either the dangers of splitting the vote or the value of strategic voting, depending on how this turns out.

    A sizable amount of Sanders supporters list Biden as their second choice, not Warren. Sanders’ and Warren’s supporters have many areas in which they don’t overlap.

    I am on the Democratic Socialist facebook page. I am struck by the large number of its members who say they will not vote Democrat if Sanders is not nominated. Some say they will not vote. Others say they will vote for a third party candidate and a few say they would even vote for 45.

    Personally, I think these people are naive taking this all or nothing approach. For me, primary object is to vote 45 out. The secondary object is to decide the best nominee for the good of the country.

    Just hope we don't see a train wreck here.
  • I will vote in the Democratic primary (unless Iowa and New Hampshire have already decided who the candidate will be). But then I will support and vote for whoever runs against Trump on the Democratic ticket. I think I once mentioned on this board that I would vote for a dog turd if it were Trump's opponent.
  • I'm with you, Pigwidgeon. There are some Democratic candidates I don't much like, but if it's between one of them and Mr. Trump, I will cast my vote for the lesser of evils.

  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited September 12
    Gramps, in Australian politics of the progressive kind, they are known as Trots or Trotskyites. No doubt it comes from British politics, and of course from the Ruskies. Trots are people who would prefer to see the enemy in power than progressives who are promoting a flawed agenda. They prefer ideological purity to power, or rather they want purity first then power.
    The strategy is usually to whittle the organisation down to like minded people and then achieve power.

    Note that the Australian left hates Trotskyites so much that they don't even call them Trotto's or Trotties, which is our usual shortening, but Trots. They must be opposed with great might and true hearts. No compromise with Trots. To have the trots is to have diarrhea.

    Mind you, those trots might also be malicious actors.
  • The result in North Carolina is interesting. PBS is calling the seat heavily gerrymandered in favor of the GOP, with 60% of the vote in the rich white part of Charlottesville. Those voters are supposed to vote heavily Republican but they are not playing the game. The seat is now marginal, and not Democrat apparently because the rural areas stayed red.

    Interesting.
  • I too will vote for whomever the Democrats put up. But I can hardly wag my finger at people who stay home if the Dems nominate another stuffed shirt like Biden.

    Trotskyists have negligible influence/ presence in the US, except on college campuses where their foremost activity is scolding other Trot sects about some arcane decades-old beef that no one else has heard of.

    Sanders is not ideologically pure by any perspective. He is not radical at all. He's got plenty of problems. It just happens that, despite those problems, he is substantially better than the other candidates- indeed, than pretty much the entire rest of the political establishment- in a way that has not been seen, perhaps, in living memory.

    So if the DNC turns its back on this opportunity- again- and again opts for an illusory "incrementalism" pandering to a largely imaginary "middle," it is understandable that some people with real problems and real aspirations don't want to waste their time voting for people who uphold the same old garbage that is ruining everyone's lives. "Incrementalism" is based on a fantasy of history inevitably progressing in a certain direction. It is the luxury of those who are soon to be dead, or who are wealthy enough to survive the house burning down under the watch of incremental firefighters.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    I too will vote for whomever the Democrats put up. But I can hardly wag my finger at people who stay home if the Dems nominate another stuffed shirt like Biden.

    Trotskyists have negligible influence/ presence in the US, except on college campuses where their foremost activity is scolding other Trot sects about some arcane decades-old beef that no one else has heard of.

    [Sanders is not ideologically pure by any perspective. He is not radical at all. He's got plenty of problems. It just happens that, despite those problems, he is substantially better than the other candidates- indeed, than pretty much the entire rest of the political establishment- in a way that has not been seen, perhaps, in living memory.

    So if the DNC turns its back on this opportunity- again- and again opts for an illusory "incrementalism" pandering to a largely imaginary "middle," it is understandable that some people with real problems and real aspirations don't want to waste their time voting for people who uphold the same old garbage that is ruining everyone's lives. "Incrementalism" is based on a fantasy of history inevitably progressing in a certain direction. It is the luxury of those who are soon to be dead, or who are wealthy enough to survive the house burning down under the watch of incremental firefighters.

    While I sympathize with much of your comment -- even including the bit I've italicized -- there are two or three other considerations to stir into this mix. Here's my list:

    1. The "opportunity" you mention contains some liabilities. This country has already gone through 3 years of chaos and will almost certainly endure more. Sanders, while apparently vigorous and healthy enough to sustain a kind of Perpetual Presidential Campaign alongside his Senate duties, is 78 years old and there's a reasonable likelihood that his presidency could be interrupted by serious health issues or even death, giving rise to further disruption. I like and admire and sympathize with Bernie, his agenda, his ideas, and so on, but I would not look forward to a changing of the guard mid-stream, with the Oval Office handed over to an as-yet-unknown veep. There's less chance of that with younger candidates. (I personally think this likelihood is higher with Biden though he's 2 years younger).

    2. Sanders has been pretty consistent in his messaging and his agenda through his 27 years in the House and Senate, which is great. Or would be great, had this consistent agenda produced a little more impact on what Congress has actually done during Sanders' career. Sanders has been evaluated by The New York Times as having a lower-than-average effect on US legislation. Granted that US Presidents are not legislators (or not so intended by the Constitution, anyway), do we really need an ineffective President to follow the loony dervish currently occupying that seat? If Sanders can't work with his colleagues as a peer, how is he going to manage when a fair number of these folks will be actively working against him?

    3. I don't buy your depiction of the Democratic field as Bernie-the-progressive versus a bunch of timid creep-along incrementalists. Warren, at least, who seems to have turned into an "I have a plan for that!" machine, looks like a good match for a progressive agenda.

    You might take a look at GovTrack.org to investigate further: https://www.govtrack.us/


  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    The result in North Carolina is interesting. PBS is calling the seat heavily gerrymandered in favor of the GOP, with 60% of the vote in the rich white part of Charlottesville.
    Charlotte. Charlottesville is in Virginia. :wink:
    Those voters are supposed to vote heavily Republican but they are not playing the game. The seat is now marginal, and not Democrat apparently because the rural areas stayed red.

    Interesting.
    Some of those rural areas typically tend more Democratic because of minority populations. Turnout appears to have been an issue.
  • Ohher wrote: »
    ...Sanders, while apparently vigorous and healthy enough to sustain a kind of Perpetual Presidential Campaign alongside his Senate duties, is 78 years old and there's a reasonable likelihood that his presidency could be interrupted by serious health issues or even death, giving rise to further disruption. I like and admire and sympathize with Bernie, his agenda, his ideas, and so on, but I would not look forward to a changing of the guard mid-stream, with the Oval Office handed over to an as-yet-unknown veep. There's less chance of that with younger candidates. (I personally think this likelihood is higher with Biden though he's 2 years younger).

    Joe Biden is currently 76 (will be 79 in January 2021). Bernie Sanders, as you say, is 78 (80 in January 2021). Elizabeth Warren is "only" 70 (72 in January 2021). (Just for the record Donald Trump is currently 73 -- 75 in January 2021). What the heck is going on? They're all older than I am, and I sure don't have the energy for this job, nor do any of my similarly-aged friends. I really, really think we need someone younger with more energy and fresh ideas and vision. (No, I don't mean Ms. Warren's thousands of "plans.")
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Pigwidgeon wrote: »
    Ohher wrote: »
    ...Sanders, while apparently vigorous and healthy enough to sustain a kind of Perpetual Presidential Campaign alongside his Senate duties, is 78 years old and there's a reasonable likelihood that his presidency could be interrupted by serious health issues or even death, giving rise to further disruption. I like and admire and sympathize with Bernie, his agenda, his ideas, and so on, but I would not look forward to a changing of the guard mid-stream, with the Oval Office handed over to an as-yet-unknown veep. There's less chance of that with younger candidates. (I personally think this likelihood is higher with Biden though he's 2 years younger).

    Joe Biden is currently 76 (will be 79 in January 2021). Bernie Sanders, as you say, is 78 (80 in January 2021). Elizabeth Warren is "only" 70 (72 in January 2021). (Just for the record Donald Trump is currently 73 -- 75 in January 2021). What the heck is going on? They're all older than I am, and I sure don't have the energy for this job, nor do any of my similarly-aged friends. I really, really think we need someone younger with more energy and fresh ideas and vision. (No, I don't mean Ms. Warren's thousands of "plans.")

    I'm 74 and still handling a fairly complex (and occasionally physically taxing as I stay on my aging feet for 4-hour-long classes) set of work responsibilities, though falling enrollments have me at more like 3/4 time than full-time, though I also volunteer some, am active in a playwriting/theatre group which puts on annual productions of our original works, and help out some with my union.

    It may be worth noting that US women, on average, live 5 years longer (and in better shape) than US males. While I'd be happier with younger candidates too, I'm also more than ready for someone at the helm willing to change the way Washington works (or rather , doesn't), and that's what Warren wants to change.
  • Sanders is seen as progressive more than Warren is, regardless of the reality.
    Warren is a woman.
    Sanders has loyal idiots.
    Sanders has voters who will turn off, vote independent or vote Trump if he is not nominated.
    None of this is at all comforting.
  • I'm watching a little of today's Dem debate. Either they and the interviewers are all unwell, or that horrible, bright lighting makes them look that way.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    ...Sanders has loyal idiots.
    Sanders has voters who will turn off, vote independent or vote Trump if he is not nominated.
    None of this is at all comforting.
    To put it mildly. They did the same thing in 2016. Add them to those who voted for doomed third-party candidates, and it gave us Trump.


  • Echoes of Ralph Nader's presidential run, against Gore and Dubya. RN did sooo much good work in consumer protection, and I greatly respect him for it.

    But he should never have run for president.* I don't think he was built for it. And he became a spoiler candidate: people who were convinced that there wasn't a difference between Dubya and Gore voted for RN. They were wrong, and IMHO they contributed to a good many messes.

    *As popular and annoying as gov't and corporations found RN to be, some shrewd president should've tried to corral him by getting him into a suitable gov't job.
  • Gore I think would have done a good job keeping a lid on things post-911. In an alt-reality thing, I guess he would have had Clinton and Podesta in his cabinet, Lynch perhaps. Who else? (bearing in mind that I was quite happy to have only a passing interest in US Politics outside Presidential elections before Trump).
  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    ...Sanders has loyal idiots.
    Sanders has voters who will turn off, vote independent or vote Trump if he is not nominated.
    None of this is at all comforting.
    To put it mildly. They did the same thing in 2016. Add them to those who voted for doomed third-party candidates, and it gave us Trump.

    Which is ironic given that Sanders' 2016 primary run, though unsuccessful in securing the nomination, managed to shift the ideological center of gravity of the Democratic party leftward to a much greater degree than the past thirty years of third party runs ostensibly aimed at the same goal. You'd think this would drive a stake through the heart of trying to achieve change through a third party in a plurality-wins first-past-the-post electoral system, but apparently the idea that voting is an atomistic consumer product customizable to suit individual vanity (rather than a process by which collective action decisions are made) is incredibly durable.
  • Ohher wrote: »
    While I sympathize with much of your comment -- even including the bit I've italicized -- there are two or three other considerations to stir into this mix. Here's my list:

    1. The "opportunity" you mention contains some liabilities. This country has already gone through 3 years of chaos and will almost certainly endure more. Sanders, while apparently vigorous and healthy enough to sustain a kind of Perpetual Presidential Campaign alongside his Senate duties, is 78 years old and there's a reasonable likelihood that his presidency could be interrupted by serious health issues or even death, giving rise to further disruption. I like and admire and sympathize with Bernie, his agenda, his ideas, and so on, but I would not look forward to a changing of the guard mid-stream, with the Oval Office handed over to an as-yet-unknown veep. There's less chance of that with younger candidates. (I personally think this likelihood is higher with Biden though he's 2 years younger).

    The substantially younger candidates who aren't stuffed shirts like Beto and Buttigieg still don't stand a chance. Unfortunately the three leading candidates are all in their 70's. So far though the only one doesn't seem to be aging well is Biden.
    3. Sanders has been pretty consistent in his messaging and his agenda through his 27 years in the House and Senate, which is great. Or would be great, had this consistent agenda produced a little more impact on what Congress has actually done during Sanders' career. Sanders has been evaluated by The New York Times as having a lower-than-average effect on US legislation. Granted that US Presidents are not legislators (or not so intended by the Constitution, anyway), do we really need an ineffective President to follow the loony dervish currently occupying that seat? If Sanders can't work with his colleagues as a peer, how is he going to manage when a fair number of these folks will be actively working against him?

    He's been a lone voice of reason and humanity in a government that is deeply reactionary on both sides of the aisle. The ideas he has consistently championed were blasphemy- not because he didn't advocate for them well but because the banks, insurance companies, and war machine advocated for their interests better than a lone senator could stand against them. Now, thanks in large part to him and the movement around him, these ideas are not crazy anymore. They are not third party issues but increasingly popular within one of the two major political parties.
    3. I don't buy your depiction of the Democratic field as Bernie-the-progressive versus a bunch of timid creep-along incrementalists. Warren, at least, who seems to have turned into an "I have a plan for that!" machine, looks like a good match for a progressive agenda.

    Warren is cool and I would be happy with her versus anyone except Bernie. If she gets the nomination I would gladly support her all the way. My feeling though is that she has been dragged a bit leftward. A number of the ideas she advocates now are not ones she has consistently supported over decades.

    And her response to the 2014 Gaza war was appalling.
  • In defense of third parties, they do eventually get the major parties to move in one direction or the other. For instance, George Wallace's American Party got the Republican party to move to the far right. Ralph Nader got the Democratic Party to move towards greater consumer protection. The question is, how will the Republican Party get out of the corner it has painted itself into--but that is tangential to the topic of this thread.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    In defense of third parties, they do eventually get the major parties to move in one direction or the other. For instance, George Wallace's American Party got the Republican party to move to the far right. Ralph Nader got the Democratic Party to move towards greater consumer protection.

    I think those two examples prove pretty much the opposite. Ralph Nader was a far more effective voice for consumer protection as an activist in the sixties and seventies than he ever was as a third party presidential candidate in the nineties and aughts.

    The Wallace's American Independent Party is another example of third party futility. It was a way-station for southern conservatives' transition between the Democratic party and the Republicans. You'll note that the states Wallace won in 1968 were pretty much the same deep south states Strom Thurmond carried twenty years before running on the hastily-organized Dixiecrat ticket. (Wallace added Georgia and Arkansas but failed to take Thurmond's native South Carolina.) In short the AIP was doomed the moment its members realized they could be more successful at advancing their agenda from within one of the two major parties than they could by splitting the vote.
  • IMHO, Nader nearly ruined his great legacy with that stupid run for president.
Sign In or Register to comment.